-

 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D. C. 20210

CLASSIFICATION

UI/QA

CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL

TEUMC

ISSUE DATE

December 2,1992

RESCISSIONS

None

EXPIRATION DATE

December 31, 1993

DIRECTIVE

:

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 10-93

 

TO

:

ALL STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES

 

FROM

:

BARBARA ANN FARMER
Administrator
for Regional Management

 

SUBJECT

:

Quality Appraisal Issues: Questions and Answers--Nonmonetary Determinations Promptness, and Emergency Unemployment Compensation

 

  1. Purpose. To inform State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) of the proper procedure for counting timeliness in Nonmonetary Determinations Promptness cases, and to provide information concerning Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC).

  2. References. ETA Handbook No. 365, Second Edition, and ETA Handbook No. 361, Revised October 1, 1986.

  3. Background. During a recent Quality Appraisal training session held at the Latham Hotel in Georgetown on August 24-28, 1992, two questions concerning Nonmonetary Determinations Promptness were surfaced. Also, the question was asked whether or not EUC samples should be used for Quality Appraisal.

  4. Review of Nonmonetary Determinations. Samples of Nonmonetary Determinations are reviewed to determine whether or not they were made timely, and, if not, what caused the determinations to be delayed. Two types of issues are included in the review--issues arising in connection with filing an additional claim, and issues arising during the claim series. The attached questions and answers are being provided in an attempt to assure that these situations are handled consistently by all States.

  5. Action Required. SESAs are requested to provide this UIPL to Quality Appraisal staff.

  6. Inquiries. Direct questions to the Regional Office.

  7. Attachment. Questions and Answers.

 

 

 


 

 

 

Attachment to UIPL 10-93
Questions and Answers

EXAMPLE: A claimant filed an additional claim and stated that there were excessive earnings for the week in which the additional claim was filed. There were no earnings the following week and the claimant did certify for that week. The claimant was not laid off for lack of work.

EXAMPLE: A claimant certifies for a week of unemployment and at the same time provides information concerning a potential issue that may affect a future week. At a later date, the claimant does certify for the affected week.